663 
6 
py 1 



XTbe xaniverstt^ of Cbtcago 



SULPHUR AS A FACTOR IN SOIL 
FERTILITY 



A DISSERTATION 

SUBMITTED TO THE FACULTY 

or THE OGDEN GRADUATE SCHOOL OP SCIENCE 

IN CANDIDACY FOR THE DEGREE OF 

DOCTOR OF PHILOSOPHY 

DEPARTMENT OF BOTANY 



BY 

JOHN WOODARD 



Private Edition, Distributed By 

THE UNIVERSITY OF CHICAGO LIBRARIES 

CHICAGO, ILLINOIS 



Reprinted from 
The Botanical Gazette, Vol. LXXIII, No. 2, February, 1922 



Zbc Tllmversit^ of Cbicaoo 



SULPHUR AS A FACTOR IN SOIL 
FERTILITY 



A DISSERTATION 

SUBMITTED TO THE FACULTY 

OF THE OGDEN GRADUATE SCHOOL OF SCIENCE 

IN CANDIDACY FOR THE DEGREE OF 

DOCTOR OF PHILOSOPHY 

DEPARTMENT OF BOTANY 



BY 

JOHN WOODARD 



Private Edition, Distributed By 

THE UNIVERSITY OF CHICAGO LIBRARIES 

CHICAGO, ILLINOIS 

Reprinted from 
The Botanical Gazette, Vol. LXXIII, No. 2, February, 1922 



* — S -vi- . 



Gift 
Qciversity 



^ .,-,-TTT NUMBER 

VOLUME LXXIII 



THE 

BOTANICAL GAZETTE 

February ig22 
SULPHUR AS A FACTOR IN SOIL FERTILITY 

CONTRIBUTIONS FROM THE HULL BOTANICAL LABORATORY 289 

John- Wood a r d 
Introduction 
Althou-h sulphur was recognized as an essential element in 
plant nutrition as early as the middle of the nineteenth century, 
the use of sulphur and sulphur compounds as fertilizers has never 
become general. Analyses for sulphur in soils have generally been 
low yet when compared with the sulphur in the ash of plants, the 
amount present in the soil seemed sufficient for all the needs of the 
crop. The use of gypsum as a fertihzer, however, was quite exten- 
sive for a time, following the discovery of its beneficial effect on 
plants. Browne (13) credits this discovery to a clergyman m 
Germany in 1768. From there it spread to France and Great 
Britain, and was brought to the United States by Benjamin 
Fr\nklin, who used it on his farm near Philadelphia. For a tmie 
gypsum was extensively used as a fertilizer both in Europe and the 
United States and gave remarkable results. Griffiths (25) reports 
experiments bv Schubert in Germany, and Crocker (15) refers 
to the experiments of Judge Peters, John Binns, and Edmund 
RUFFIN in the United States. All these men obtained remarkable 
results with gypsum on legumes. 

The use of gypsum alone, however, soon failed to mcrease crop 
yields, and investigators seeking for an explanation came to the 
conclusion that the gypsum acts chemically on the phosphorus or 
potassium compounds in the soil and liberates either phosphorus or 

81 



82 BOTAMCAL GAZI'.TTE [fkhriarv 

potassium or both. This view is presented by Griffiths (25), 
VooRHEES (72), and Hopkins (32). Browne (13) and Bruckner 
(14) consider the beneficial effect of gypsum due, in part at least, 
to the nutrient effect of the sulphur; while V'exdelmans (70) and 
PIilgard (31) mention its beneficial effects, particularly on the 
legumes, without giving any explanation. 

In most fertilizer experiments sulphur has been added, together 
with phosphorus, in acid phosphate or basic slag, or with the 
potassium in potassium sulphate or kainit. When beneficial results 
have been obtained, the investigators have invariably ignored the 
possible effects of the sulphur. This may lead to erroneous con- 
clusions, as was pointed out by Liebig (37) in 1855. He said 
that the sulphur or the calcium in the acid phosphate, or both, 
might have had a beneficial effect on the turnips in the Rothamsted 
experiments, as well as the phosphorus. 

Hopkins, Mosier, Pettit, and Reauhimer (33) found that 
kainit increased the yields of corn, wheat, and oats on the waste 
hill land of Johnson County, Illinois, when used with bonemeal, 
ground limestone, and crop residues, over similarly treated plots 
without kainit. On the plots receiving no kainit, as well as on 
those receiving the kainit, cowpeas were grown once every three 
years and turned under as part of the crop residues. Stewart 
(66) compared potassium chloride and potassium sulphate as 
fertilizers for apple orchards in Pennsylvania. He found no 
appreciable difference in the effect of these salts. Smith (65) 
found a greater yield of oat straw for potassium sulphate than 
potassium chloride in pots containing Hagerstown silt loam. 

Brooks (8) compared the effects of potassium sulphate and 
potassium chloride on alfalfa in field experiments at the Massachu- 
setts Agricultural Experiment Station. Both ])lots received 600 
pounds of bonemeal per annum, and both received 2 tons per 
acre of hydrated hme before planting the alfalfa. Both Grimm 
alfalfa and common alfalfa w^ere used. Potassium sulphate gave 
increased yields of 0.50 tons of Grimm alfalfa and 0.75 tons of com- 
mon alfalfa over potassium chloride. In every case the alfalfa on the 
plots receiving potassium sulphate was a darker green than on the 
plots receiving potassium chloride. The same difference in color 



1922] WOODARD—SOIL FERTILITY 83 

was reported for the same treatment on other crops. Brooks (9) 
also made a comparison of different phosphate fertihzers. He 
found that acid phosphate and dissolved boneblack, which contain 
sulphur, gave greater increases in crop yields than raw bonemeal 
and rock phosphate, which contain little or no sulphur. A more 
rapid early growth of both tops and roots and earlier maturity 
were observed on the plots receiving the dissolved boneblack and 
acid phosphate than on the plots receiving raw bonemeal and rock 
phosphate. 

The use of flowers of sulphur as a fert'lizer was observed to 
have an influence aside from its effect in destroying the fungi which 
cause plant diseases. Mares (50) noticed a much greater vigor 
in vines that had been sulphured than in those which had not. 
He found that the sulphur was oxidized to sulphuric acid in the 
soil, and he thought that the sulphuric acid acted on the insoluble 
compounds containing potassium and made the potassium soluble. 
Demolon (16) found that heating the soil prevented the oxida- 
tion, and so he concluded that oxidation was caused by micro- 
organisms. Pfeiffer and Blanck (56) obtained no increased 
yields of oats for the use of flowers of sulphur in field experiments. 
Feilitzen (21) in Europe, and Sherbakoff (64) in the United 
States both obtained increased yields of potatoes from the use of 
flowers of sulphur. 

Boullanger and Dugardin (3) found flowers of sulphur in- 
creased ammonification but decreased nitrification. The harmful 
effect on the nitrifying bacteria was probably due to the acidity, 
as Lint (38) found that the oxidation of sulphur in the soil in- 
creased the acidity very much. Fred and Hart (23) report an 
increase in ammonification from the use of gypsum in peptone so- 
lutions, and Warington (73) obtained an increase in nitrification 
when gypsum was applied to solutions of urea. Greaves, Carter, 
and GoLDTHORPE (24) studied the influence of calcium sulphate 
on production of nitrates and found it caused a great increase in 
all concentrations used. The increase was very high for the higher 
concentrations of calcium sulphate. 

Brioux and Guerbet (7) found that flowers of sulphur 
increased availability of calcium and potassium in both calcareous 



§4 BOTAMCM. GAZETTE [febrl-.\ry 

and noncalcareoLis soils, but had no effect on phosphorus. LiP- 
MAN' and McLean (42) found that composting rock phosphate 
with sulphur increased the solubilit\- of phosphorus. AIcLkax 
(48) found an increase of solubility of phosphorus in the sulphur- 
rock phosphate compost when compost was inoculated. The 
presence of soluble phosphates and sulphates did not inhibit the 
action. Lipmax, McLean, and Lint (43) found a great increase in 
acidity in the sulphur-floats mixture. Lipaian and Joffe (41) 
found no increased availability in phosphorus when acidity was 
increased by the addition of sulphuric acid. Ellett and Harris 
(20) found greater availability of phosphorus in a manure-soil- 
floats-sulphur compost than in a soil-floats-sulphur compost. 
Ames and Richmond (2) found no increased availability of 
phosphorus in a compost to which calcium carbonate had been 
added. Acid conditions are necessary for the solution of the 
phosphorus. Brown and Gwinn (id) found an increased solu- 
bility of phosphorus in soil treated with sulphur as well as in com- 
posts. Brown and Warner (12) found no increased solubility 
of phosphorus in a manure-floats compost, but a great increase 
w'hen flowers of sulphur were added to the compost. 

The use of gypsum as a preservative of the nitrogen in manure 
has been investigated by Heinricii (30), Vivien (71). Xolte (53), 
and by Ames and Richmond (i). All these investigators report 
a saving of nitrogen from the use of gypsum on the manure. 

Investigations on the effect of flowers of sulphur on the a\ail- 
ability of potassium in greensands were conducted by McCall 
and Smith '45^. They found an increase in the a\ailability of 
potassium in composts of sulphur, greensands, and manure, but 
no increase in a\-ailability of potassium in composts of sulphur, 
greensands, and soil. 

Reports of investigators who studied the influence of gypsum 
on the availability of potassium do not agree. ]\rcCooL and 
Millar (46.) found calcium sul[)hate api)lied to soil lowered the 
freezing point of the soil. Xo rej)ort was gi\-en as to the character 
of the compounds that lowered the freezing point. Bradley (4) 
found an increase in solubility of potassium but not of phosphorus 
in Oregon soils. Hriocs and Brezkale (6) found a decrease in 



1922] WOODARD—SOIL FERTILITY 85 

solubility of potassium in California soils when gypsum was added, 
and the solubility of potassium decreased as the amount of gypsum 
used was increased. Brezeale and Briggs (5) grew wheat in 
water cultures, using extracts from orthoclase minerals with and 
without gypsum. The gypsum did not increase the availabihty 
of the potassium to the wheat. Morse and Curry (52) treated 
feldspars with gypsum for ten weeks in water, filtered oft" the solu- 
tion and analyzed for potassium. Only sHghtly more potassium was 
found than when no gypsum was used. McMillar (49) treated 
five different soils with gypsum for three months and analyzed for 
soluble potassium. Gypsum was used at the rate of ten tons per 
acre and resulted in an increase in soluble potassium in every case. 
Tressler (69) found an increase in soluble potassium in some soils, 
but no increase in others when treated with gypsum. Lipman 
and Gericke (39) obtained an increase of available potassium in 
greenhouse soil, a shght increase in adobe soil, and no increase in 
sand. Fraps (22) grew plants in pots of soil treated with gypsum 
and analyzed the plants for potassium. He found no increase in 
potassium in plants grown on the gypsum-treated soil above that 
on the soil without gypsum. He reports no analyses of the soils 
used, however, so it is not known whether these soils were deficient 
in potassium or not. If the soil has sufficient potassium in an 
available form to supply all the plants' needs, there would not 
likely be any increased absorption even if the soil treatment dis- 
solved some of the insoluble potassium compounds in the soil. 
On the other hand, in a soil deficient in potassium and sulphur, 
the application of gypsum or any other fertihzer containing sulphur 
would stimulate the growth of roots, and the increased size of the 
root system would make it possible for the plant to absorb more 
potassium. This increased absorption would take place regardless 
of any possible eftects on the solubility of the potassium compounds 
in the soil. 

The experiments of McMillar (49), Tressler (69), and 
Lipman (39) indicate a greater solubihty of potassium in some 
soils when treated with gypsum, but other soils show no effect, 
while Briggs and Brezeale (6) report a decrease in solubihty 
when gypsum was used. It seems, therefore, that the beneficial 



86 IU)TA\ICAL GAZETTE [fkbrl-ary 

elTects of gypsum can hardlv- he ascribed to its effect on the solu- 
bilit>' of the potassium in the soil. It seems more likely that the 
soils that respond to the use of <:;>{)sum are delicient in some element 
that is supplied by the gypsum. 

Recent studies of methods for the analysis of organic material 
for sulphur have shown that all the sulphur is not recovered in 
the ash when organic material is burned. H.\rt and Peterson 
(27, 28) found one hunflred times as much SO, in the rice grain as 
in the ash of that grain, and forty times as much in the corn grain. 
Similar results were obtained with other grains, but the ratios were 
less in some cases. Onions, potatoes, crucifers, and legumes use 
large quantities of sulphur. Alfalfa removes twice as much sulphur 
as phosphorus from the soil. Peterson (55) studied the sulphur 
compounds in plants and found proteins, volatile compounds, 
mustard oils, and sulphates. In ashing the plant material the 
sulphates remain, but at best part of the sulphur in other com- 
pounds is lost. IMost soils are low in sulphur, which is present in 
the soil in the form of sulphates and organic matter. Sulphates 
are all soluble, and, like nitrates, they are not adsorbed to any 
great extent, and therefore are quickly leached out of the soil in 
the humid regions. The organic sulphur is insoluble but is readily 
oxidized to sulphates, so that it is gradually being lost unless taken 
up by the plant. Lvox and Bizzell (44) in their lysimeter studies 
at Cornell found that the loss of sulphur in the drainage from 
uncropped lysimeters was as great as the loss in drainage and in 
the crops from cropped soil. The oxidation of organic sulphur to 
sulphates seemed to continue at the same rate in cropped and 
uncropped soil, and that not taken up by plants was lost in the 
drainage. 

Cultivation stimulates oxidation and consequently the loss of 
sulphur. S W.ANSON and Miller (68) report a loss of 38.53 per 
cent of sulphur from the surface and 41.56 per cent from the sub- 
soil of Kansas soils due to cropping. The surface soil of virgin 
land had 0.044 per cent sulphur, while adjoining cropped land had 
0.027 per cent. The sulj)hur content of the subsoil was 0.062 per 
cent in the virgin land and 0.036 per cent in the cropped land. 
On the other hand, phosphorus was j)ractically the same in the 



192 2] WOOD A RD— SOIL FERTILITY 87 

cropped as in the virgin land in both surface and subsoil. The 
cultivated soils had been cropped for thirty to forty years. 

Lyon and Bizzell (44) found an increased loss of sulphur in 
the drainage when burnt lime was used, while MacIntire, Willis, 
and Holding (47) found the loss greater for calcium carbonate 
than for calcium oxide. It seems the carbonate favors bacterial 
action much more than the oxide. 

Robinson (59, 60) analyzed a large number of soil samples 
from different parts of the United States for sulphur and phos- 
phorus. Most of them were low, some extremely low, in both 
phosphorus and sulphur. Many of the samples were much lower 
in sulphur than phosphorus. Brown and Kellogg (ii) analyzed 
samples of Iowa soils and found the sulphur content varied from 
719 to 938 pounds per acre in the surface soil, while the phosphorus 
content varied from 1289 to 1538 pounds per acre. Shedd (62) 
analyzed samples of Kentucky soils and found the sulphur content 
in the surface soil varied from 213 to 1080 pounds per acre in virgin 
soil, and from 180 to 560 pounds per acre in cultivated soils. The 
phosphorus content in the surface soil ranged from 320 to 5860 
pounds in virgin soil, and from 320 to 7240 pounds in cultivated soil. 

Some sulphur is brought down from the air in rain water. 
The amount is probably greater during periods of heavy rainfall 
than when the precipitation is slight. Near cities, where a large 
amount of coal is burned, the amount is probably much greater 
than in country districts far from cities and railroads. The data, 
however, are too meager to form any definite conclusions. Hall 

(26) reports sulphur analyses of rain water at Rothamsted from 1881 
to 1887 which give an annual average of seven pounds of sulphur 
in the rainwater per acre per year. Analyses by Hart and Peterson 

(27) at the University of Wisconsin for part of a year led them to 
the conclusion that the amount in one year would be approximately 
the same as found at Rothamsted. Stewart (67) analyzed rain 
water at the University of Illinois and obtained as a seven-year 
average 45.1 pounds of sulphur per annum. All of these analyses 
are of rain water collected near cities. The water in the rain 
gauges is likely to be contaminated by dust and soot and by the 
droppings of birds which roost on the rain gauges. 



88 BOTA XICA L GA ZE TTE 



FKBRUARY 



Laan'KS and Ciii.iiKRT (36) found, in tlu'ir fertilizer c\j)criments 
with red clo\-er, that "the ]>rc)duce was considerably increased by 
the apphcation of gypsum, and still more so by that of the sul- 
phates of potash, soda, and magnesia, and superphosphate of lime." 
In four years the increased }-ield from the use of gypsum was 3.5 
tons of dry ha>'. or an a\-erage of 0.9 ton per acre ])er year. 

IlrxT (35). at the Pennsylvania Agricultural I-lxjieriment Sta- 
tion, used gyj)sum in a rotation of corn, oats, wheat, and hay 
(timothy and clover). (lypsum was applied at the rate of 320 
pounds per acre per rotation in two applications, 160 i)0unds to 
the corn and 160 pounds to the wheat. Xo other fertilizers were 
used, and no increases in }'ields were obtained from the use of 
g}psum. 'Jdiese experiments would be more valuable if the gypsum 
had been ai)plied to the clover anfl other fertilizers had been used 
to remove the possibility of another limiting factor. 

Miller (51) grew clover in pots containing Oregon soils. 
Applications of sulphur were made in the form of flowers of sul- 
phur, sodium sulphate, and gypsum. (i}j)sum and sodium sul])hate 
gave increased \'ields, but the llowers of suli)hur had little effect. 

SciiREiXER (61) studied the effect of different salts on oxida- 
tion in soil extracts in which wdieat seedlings were grown. He 
reports increased oxidation from the use of calcium suljihate, 
potassium sulphate, and sodium sul]:)hate. 

DvMoxD, Hughes, and Jupe (18) comi)ared the effect of 
ammonium sulphate and ammonium chloride on cabbages grown 
on non-calcareous soil. Oreater yields were obtained with the 
ammonium suli)hate tlian with the ammonium chloride. In their 
experiments with clover they obtained a 20 per cent increase in 
hay from the use of g>psum. In pastures they observed that 
legumes predominated where sulphates were aj^plied, and grasses 
where no sulphates were used, (jyj)sum increased the A'ields of 
red clover, maize, and vetch in sand cultures, and of vetch in soil 
cultures. All the pots received applications of calcium and mag- 
nesium carbonates. 

LiPM.AX and Gericke (40) compared the effects of different 
nitrogenous fertilizers on barley grown on Oakley's vitro sand, and 
found the greatest increase with ammonium sulphate. When 



1922] 



WOOD ARD— SOIL FERTILITY 89 



sulphur containing substances were added to the non-sulphur 
containing nitrogenous fertilizers, they produced yields equal to 
those from ammonium sulphate. 

Shedd (63) grew soy beans, oats, alfalfa, and wheat in pots 
containing Kentucky soils. Eight different soils were used, and 
flowers of sulphur added at the rate of 100 and 200 pounds per 
acre. Both controls and sulphur treated pots received tricalcium 
phosphate, potassium nitrate, and calcium carbonate. There were 
some increases but also some decreases. 

Eaton (19) grew sweet corn in pots containing sand. He 
compared the effect of gypsum, flowers of sulphur, and sodium 
sulphate. The controls as well as the different sulphur treatments 
were watered with a nutrient solution which contained no sulphur. 
Gypsum increased the yield, while flowers of sulphur and sodium 
sulphate gaye increases for the smaller applications and decreases 
for the larger applications. 

DULEY (17) reported a darker green in sweet clover and corn 
when fertilized with gypsum or sulphur. More nodules were also 
produced on the roots. 

PiTZ (57) grew clover in agar-agar containing dipotassmm 
phosphate with and without calcium sulphate. Greater length of 
roots was obtained with the calcium sulphate. Clover was also 
grown in Miami silt loam with and without calcium sulphate. 
The calcium sulphate increased the root length. 

Hart and Tottingh.^m (29) found a decided increase in develop- 
ment of beans, red clover, and peas when fertiUzed with either 
calcium sulphate or sodium sulphate. In beans and peas the 
increase was in the seed, in clover it was in the hay and roots. 
Sulphates increased the yields of both tops and roots in radishes. 
The yield of rape tops was increased by both calcium and sodium 
sulphates. Barley was not affected by the sulphates, and oats to 

only a slight extent. 

Olson (54) conducted field e.xperiments with alfalfa at the 
Washington Agricultural Experiment Station and obtained in- 
creased yields from the use of acid phosphate and gypsum, but 
not from other forms of phosphorus. Two hundred pounds ot 
g^-psum per acre increased the yields of alfalfa from 100 to 500 
per cent. 



9© BOTAXICAI. CAZETTE [ferriary 

Rkimfr and Tartar (58) conducted held experiments on sev- 
eral Oregon soils. Superphosphate, flowers of sulphur, rock phos- 
phate, potassium chloride, potassium sulj)hate, iron sulphate, 
<^'psum, monocalcium jihosphate, sodium nitrate, ammonium 
suli)hate, magnesium sul])hale, sodium sulphate, iron pyrites, 
Cjuick lime, and ground limestone were used as fertilizers. In 
almost every case enormous increases in fields (from two to ten 
times as much as the checks) were obtained for all the fertilizers 
containing sulphur, and no increase or only a small increase 
for the fertihzers which contained no sulphur. Acid ])hosphate 
was compared with gy])sum and rock j)hosj)hate and with rock 
phosphate and tlowers of suli)hur. The \ield on the plot recei\ing 
rock phosphate and gypsum was consi(leral)ly greater, and that 
from the plot receiving rock phosphate and flowers of sulphur 
slightly greater, than the yield from the acid phosphate treated 
plot. The alfalfa on all the i)lots receiving sulphur in any form 
was a darker green than on the plots which received no sulphur. 

Chemical analyses of soil samples from these exi)erimental 
lields were made. The sulphur content varied from 0.015 to 
0.038 per cent in the surface soil, and from 0.014 to 0.030 i)er cent 
in the subsoil. The phosphorus content varied from 0.048 to 
0.076 per cent in the surface, and from 0.066 to 0.085 pcr cent in 
the subsoil. AH were high in calcium, magnesium, and j)otassiun-i. 

Investigation 

The analyses made by Rouixsox (59, 60) show wide variation 
in the sulphur content oi dilTerent soil types. His investigations, 
although extensive, have included onl\- a part of the numerous soil 
types found in the United States, so that other soil tyj^es should l^e 
anal}'zed to discover their suli)hur as well as their j)ho.'^j)horus 
content. It is also necessary to conduct held experiments on the 
different soils, as analytical data alone arc not sufficient evidence 
on which to base fertilizer practice. This investigation includes 
soil analyses and fiekl experiments. Soil samples from Indiana, 
Kentucky, ^Michigan, Ohio, and Wisconsin were analyzed for 
phosphorus, sulphur, and volatile matter (loss on ignition). Field 



1922] WOODARDSOIL FERTILITY QI 

experiments were conducted in Indiana and Kentucky on the fields 
from which the soil samples were taken. 

Soil analysis 

Methods of sampling.— The soil samples from Michigan and 
Ohio (nos. 1-9) were taken by Dr. William Crocker and those 
from Wisconsin (nos. lo-ii) by Mr. E. H. Hall. The samples 
were taken in the usual way by means of a soil auger. The samples 
from Indiana and Kentucky were taken when the soil was very 
wet, and as only the surface soil was sampled, it was beheved that 
more accurate samphng could be done by using a spade or shovel. 
Some soil was removed to a depth of seven inches, leaving one side 
of the hole vertical, then a thin shce of soil was cut with the spade 
to the full depth of seven inches. A narrow strip of this extending 
from top to bottom was removed for the sample. Three or four 
such samples from different parts of the field were taken and mixed 
to form a composite sample. The samples from Indiana were 
taken by John Woodard. except no. 18, which was taken by Mr. 
V. G. Mann, and those from Kentucky by John Woodard, except 
nos. 32-34, which were taken by Mr. J. C. Gentry. All the soil 
samples were air dried, sifted through a 2 mm. sieve, and thoroughly 

mixed. 

Analytical methods. Phosphorus was determined according 
to the oflicial magnesium nitrate method of the Official Agricultural 
Chemists. A blank determination was run to determine the 
possible presence of phosphorus in the chemicals, but no phos- 
phorus was found. 

Sulphur was determined by a modification of the methods of 
Shedd and of Brown and Kellogg. In preliminary work it was 
found that higher results were obtained when the iron and aluminum 
were removed. In soils low in sulphur the barium sulphate pre- 
cipitated very slowly, so, at the suggestion of Dr. Frederick 
Koch,' 10 cc. of approximately N/io H,SO, was added immedi- 
ately before heating the solution and adding the barium chloride. 
This sulphuric acid was measured in a burette, and exactly the 

' Unpublished work of Dr. Frederick Koch. 



92 BOTAXICAL CA/r.TTE [fkijrcary 

same ([uaiilit}' of the same acid was added lo the l)Iank determina- 
tion, so that subtracting the bhink subtracted the sulphur added 
in the sulphuric acid as well as that present in the reagents. In 
every case the lo cc. was measured between the lo and 20 marks 
on the burette. According to Kocii, barium sulphate does not 
precipitate readily when the concentration of the SO^ ion is low. 
The addition of the sulphuric acid is then necessary to bring the 
concentration of the SO4 ion up to the j^oint where precipitation 
takes place readily. The method as linally adopted is as follows: 
The ecjuivalent of 10 gm. of oven dry soil was weighed into a 
nickel crucible, moistened with a few drops of distilled water, and 
])art of a weighed 20 gm. of sodium {"jcro-xide stirred in a little at 
a time with a nickel rod. (If the moisture was just right, reaction 
took place immediately without the application of heat, and the 
charge was fairly dry by the time most of the sodium pero.xide had 
been stirred in. If too little water had been added, it was neces- 
sary to heat with an alcohol lamj) to start the reaction. If too 
much water was added, it was necessary to heat with the alcohol 
lamp to bring lo the desired degree of dryness before adding the 
last of the sodium pero.xide.) After the charge was fairly dr}-. the 
rest of the sodium peroxide was placed o\-er the charge, the crucible 
covered, and heated o\er a bunsen burner, raising the temperature 
gradually to a fairly high temperature which was maintained for an 
hour. After cooling, the fused mass was remo\ed with hot dis- 
tilled water to a 600 cc. beaker, neutralized with concentrated 
HCl, and then 10 cc. additional concentrated HCl added. The 
beaker was then heated for tive or six hours on the steam bath with 
occasional stirring. It was then transferretl to a 500 cc. tlask, 
covered, and made uf) to the mark. The solution was shaken 
frequently for several hours and the 250 cc. tiltered olY. The 
250 cc. of tiltrate was transferred to a 600 cc. beaker, heated on 
the steam bath, and the iron, aluminium, and silica precipitated 
with ammonium hydroxide, allowed to stand a few minutes, and 
then llltered into a one liter beaker. The precipitate was washed 
with hot distilled water until the combined filtrate and washings 
had a \-olume of approximately 600 cc. Exactly 10 cc. of approx- 
imatelv X'lo H.SO, was then added, heated to boilimr. and 10 cc. 



19-2-^] WOODARD—SOIL FERTILITY 



93 



of hot lo per cent BaCl, solution added a drop at a time from a 
pipette. The sohition was boiled for ten minutes, placed on the 
steam bath for two or three hours, and then removed and allowed 
to stand over night. The barium sulphate precipitate was then 
filtered off, washed with cold distilled water, transferred to a 
weighed porcelain crucible, ignited to a dull red in a muffle furnace, 
cooled in a desiccator, and weighed. Blanks were determined 
using the same reagents and adding the same quality of the same 
sulphuric acid that was used in the determination. 

The loss on ignitioii was determined on samples which had 
been used for determining moisture. The moisture was deter- 
mined by heating lo gm. of air dry soil in the oven for five or six 
hours. Part of the samples were heated to ioo° C. in an ordinary 
oven and part of them to 35° C. in a vacuum oven. After weighing 
for the moisture determination, the sample was placed in the 
mufl^e furnace, heated to a dull red for an hour, cooled in a desic- 
cator, and weighed. The loss on ignition was calculated as percent- 
age of oven dry soil. Table I gives the results of the analytical 
work on all the soils analyzed. Phosphorus, sulphur, and volatile 
matter (loss on ignition) are reported as percentage of oven dry 
soil. 

Sulphur is present in the soil either in the form of sulphates of 
calcium, magnesium, and iron, or in the form of organic matter. 
All the sulphates are quite soluble and are not readily adsorbed, 
so that they are leached out rapidly and only small amounts are 
present in the soil. On the other hand, the organic sulphur is 
insoluble and remains in the soil until oxidized to sulphates. One 
would expect, therefore, some sort of relation between the sulphur 
content of the soil and the volatile matter (loss on ignition), which 
is a rough method of determining the organic matter. The data 
in table I, however, indicate only a general relation, and that only 
when samples from the same soil type or closely related soil types 
are compared. The soil samples from Wisconsin are from the 
same soil type, but differ in amount of organic matter. There is 
also a difference in content of sulphur, and the higher sulphur con- 
tent is found in the sample with the higher content of organic mat- 
ter. This is true for both surface soil and subsoil. The Michigan 



94 



BOT.IMCAI. GAZETTE 
TAIILI. I 



I-KHRIAKV 



Sample 
no. 


Soil 
strata 
(inches) 


Xajiic of farm or farm owner 


Location 


I'ir. entaRC 

of \olatile 

matter 


Percentage 
of sulphur 


Percentage 
of phos- 
phorus 


I A. .. 


0-() 


Wah-Bec-Mce-Mcc 


farm 


Michigan 


2 .076 


0.0158 


0.0360 


I ]^ . . 


7-U 


Wali-Bcc-Mee-Mee 


farm 


Micliigan 


2..U1 


0.0157 


0330 


I C. . . 


15-24 


Wah-Bec-Mcc-Mcc 


farm 


Michigan 


2.bh2 


0.0216 


- 0305 


2 A... 


o-() 


Wah-Bee-Mee-.Mee 


farm 


Michigan 


4 . C)88 


. 0486 


0.051 8 


2 B . . . 


7-14 


\Vali-Bee-,Mce-Mef 


farm 


Michigan 


4.4>Si 


0405 


0.0561 


3 A... 


0-0 


Wah-Bec-Mce-Mec 


farm 


Michigan 


2.863 


0.0183 


. 0390 


3R... 


7-14 


Wah-Bce-Mce-Mce 


farm 


Micliigan 


2.522 


0159 


0.0324 
f Not 


4 A... 


o-() 


\\ah-Bce-i\Ice ;\Iee 


farm 


Micliigan 


4.802 


. 036 1 


■j deter- 

[ mined 

Not 

deter- 


4B... 


7^14 


Wah-Iii'o-Mee-Mee 


farm 


Michigan 


3-754 


0.0263 
















[ mined 


5 A... 


o-() 


Wah-Bee-Moc-Arce 


farm 


Michigan 


4 ■ 3 1 1 


0.0319 


0.0514 


5B... 


7-14 


Wah-Bee-Mec-Mce 


farm 


Michigan 


3.822 


. 0283 


046S 


5C... 


15-24 


Wah-Bec-Mee-Mee 


farm 


Michigan 


3-462 


0.0177 


• 0305 


6 A... 


0-6 


KvtTctt's farm 




Ohio 


i'-^i'i 


0.0232 


0.0788 


6 B . . . 


7-14 


Everett's farm 




Ohio 


2 . 466 


0.0140 


. 04 11 


7 A... 


o-() 


Arnold's farm 




Ohio 


4-642 


. 0334 


0.0771 


7B... 


7- 


Arnold's farm 




Ohio 


2.984 


O.OT95 


0.0423 


8A. .. 


0-6 


JacoI)_\'s farm 




Ohio 


5.228 


0.0281 


0.0582 


SB... 


7- 


Jacohy's farm 




Ohio 


3.14s 


0.0050 


0.0326 


A . . . 


o-() 


Jacoln-'s farm 




Ohio 


14-327 


. ogo5 


. 0939 


gB... 


1~ 


Jacoby's farm 




Ohio 


5 ■ 969 


0.0194 


034,5 


loA. .. 


0-6 


WajJ^cr's farm 




Wisconsin 


8. 116 


0.0351 


0.0744 


loB. .. 


7~ 


Wafer's farm 




Wisconsin 


6.954 


0.0202 


. 0649 


II A. .. 


0-6 


Wager's farm 




Wisconsin 


6 . 836 


0.0245 


0.0795 


iiB. .. 


7- 


\\'af:;er's farm 




Wisconsin 


4 043 


0.0124 


0.0457 


12 


o-() 


Ross's farm 




Indiana 


5-75« 


0.0172 


0.1054 


13 


0-6 


Carr's farm 




Indiana 


4.721 


0.0165 


0.0628 


14 


0-0 


Reich's farm 




Indiana 


4 -075 


00118 


. 0490 


15 


0-6 


Bentley's farm 
(cropped soil) 




Indiana 


4 8o() 


0155 


0.0566 


16 


0-6 


Bentley's farm 
('\irKin soil) 




Indiana 


5 24Q 


0233 


0.0564 


17 


0-6 


Barnett's farm 




Indiana 


4.462 


0.0183 


0.0492 


18 


0-6 


McCulloch's farm 




Indiana 


4.807 


00155 


0.0578 


19 


0-6 


Adina farm 




Kentucky 


7.024 


0.0258 


0. 1897 


20 


0-6 


Adina farm 




Kentucky 


4.526 


0.0232 


0.079Q 


21 


0-6 


Adina farm 




Kentucky 


7 ■ 496 


0.0131 


0. 1636 


22 


0-6 


Adina farni 




Kentucky 


4.884 


0.0122 


0. 1298 


23 


0-6 


Adina farm 




Kentucky 


4318 


0.0206 


. 0768 


24 


0-6 


Marshall's farm 




Kentucky 


5-517 


0.0264 


0.1377 


25 


o-() 


Downinj^'s farm 




Kentucky 


5.466 


0.0159 


0.0977 


26 


0-6 


Downing's farm 




Kentucky 


5-229 


0.0236 


0.1765 


27 


a-6 


Downinf^'s farm 




Kentucky- 


5 327 


0.0153 


0.1370 


28.... 


0-6 


( ientry and Curry's 


farm 


Kentucky 


().02I 


0.0245 


0.2355 


29 


0-6 


Scott's farm 




Kentucky 


5.088 


0.0235 


. 1 500 


30 


0-6 


Sharp's farm 




Kcntuck\' 


6 . 540 


0.0161 


0. 1779 


31 


0-6 


Moore's farm 




Kentucky 


4- 723 


0.0253 


0. 1007 


32 


0-6 


l-"o\vler's farm 




Kentucky 


5-051 


0.0250 


0. 1727 


ii 


0-6 


Watt's farm 




Kentucky 


5-836 


0.0163 


0. 1306 


34-.. 


0-6 


Tuomey's farm 




Kentucky 


11 . I 05 


0313 


- 3407 



1922] WOODARD—SOIL FERTILITY 



95 



soil samples are also quite similar in texture. Here again we lincl a 
high sulphur content with a high organic matter content, and a 
low sulphur content with a low organic matter content. When we 
compare different soil types or samples from the same type but 
from fields which have been cropped differently, however, there is 
Httle evidence of any relation. Samples 7 B and 9 B have approxi- 
mately the same sulphur content, yet the volatile matter in the 
latter is twice that in the former. Both these samples are sub- 
soils from Ohio, and were taken from fields that were not far apart, 
but 7 B is on upland silt loam while 9 B is a muck soil. Again, the 
cropped soil (no. 15) and the virgin soil (no. 16) from Bentley's 
farm, Indiana, differ only slightly in volatile matter, but dift'er 
widely in sulphur content. Gentry and Curry's soil (no. 28) has 
shghtly less \-olatile matter than Sharp's soil (no. 30), but con- 
siderably more sulphur. Sample 10 A from Wager's farm in Wis- 
consin is a fine sandy loam soil with very little clay but a large 
amount of organic matter, as may be recognized by its black color, 
yet it contains considerably less sulphur than sample 2 A from the 
Wah-Bee-Mee-Mee farm in Michigan, which is also a sandy loam 
soil, containing considerable coarse sand with sulScient organic 
matter to give a black color. 

It seems, then, that from the sulphur standpoint, as well as the 
nitrogen standpoint, the character of the organic matter is of more 
importance than the amount. Sulphur, like nitrogen, is mainly 
present in the proteins, so that a small amount of high protein 
organic matter, such as one would obtain by plowing under leg- 
umes, would Ije more valuable than a larger quantity of organic 
matter from wheat or oat straw or cornstalks. It seems probable 
also that the proteins are more readily decomposed than the non- 
protein organic matter, so that the sulphur and nitrogen would be 
oxidized more rapidly than the carbon, and the sulphur and nitrogen 
content might become quite low when there was still a consider- 
able amount of carbonaceous organic matter in the soil. 

In all the samples analyzed, the sulphur content was less than 
the phosphorus content. One of the samples from Ohio which 
was taken in a low wet place was a muck, very high in organic 
matter. This soil had nearly as much sulphur as phosphorus in 



96 BOTAXICAL a.l/.KTTE [fkhkiary 

the surfaci' sdII (no. c) A), but the subsoil (no. q H) liad onI_\' a little 
more than half as much sulphur as j)hosi)lu)rus. 'I'hc dilTerence 
between the sulphur and ])h()si)horus contents in one of the Mich- 
igan soils was not great. The surface soil (no. 2 A) contained 
0.0486 per cent sulphur and 0.0518 per cent phosphorus, while the 
subsoil (no. 2B) contained 0.0405 per cent sul]:)hur and 0.0561 j)er 
cent i)hosphorus. All the other samples were much higher in j)hos- 
]")horus than in sulj)hur. 'Hie dilYerence was very great in one of 
the Indiana soils, which had oxer six times as much phosphorus as 
sulpliur, and in the Kentucky soils, in most of which the j)h()spho- 
rus content was from live to eleven times as much as the sulphur. 
In two of the Kentucky soils the phosphorus content was only three 
times as much as the sulphur, and in one only four times as much. 

The Michigan soils, sam])les 15, were taken on the Wah-Bee- 
]\Iee-]\Iee farm at White Pigeon, ^Michigan. Samples i and 5 
were samj^led to three dei)ths and all the others to two de])ths. 
These soils are allu\"ial sandy loams, \arying from light brown to 
dark brown on the surface and grading into a \ellow sandy subsoil 
containing some gravel. The light colored samples contained 
more sand in both surface and subsoil and were lower in \-olatile 
matter, sulphur, and phosphorus, than the darker colored ones. 
All were low in both suli)hur and j)hosj)horus, but the sul])hur is 
lower than phosi)horus in all the samples. With the exception of 
sample i, the suli)hur was always lower in the subsoil than in the 
surface soil. 

The Ohio soils. sami:)]es 6-q, were taken near Copley, Ohio. 
Xos. 6, 7. and 8 are upland silt loams containing some sand. The 
surface soil is a yellow brown grading into a uniformly light yellow- 
subsoil, w^hich indicates good underdrainage as well as good sur- 
face drainage. These soils apparently belong to the type mapped 
as the Wooster silt loam. The sulphur content was low in both 
surface and subsoil, while the jihosphorus content was fairly good 
in the surface but low in the subsoil. In every sample the sub- 
soil was lower in \"olatile matter, suli)hur, and i)hosphorus than the 
corresponding surface soil. 

Sample 9 is poorly drained, and the surface soil has a large 
amount of organic matter with some silt, sand, and a little clay. 



1922] WOODARDSOIL FERTILITY 97 

The subsoil has much less organic matter, but the proportion of 
its other constituents is about the same as in the surface. The 
surface soil is very high in volatile matter, sulphur, and phosphorus, 
while the subsoil is very low in both sulphur and phosphorus. 

The Wisconsin soils, samples lo and ii, are from near Beloit, 
Wisconsin. They are fine sandy loams, dark brown on the surface 
and a hghter brown in the subsoil. In both samples the volatile 
matter, sulphur, and phosphorus are higher in the surface soil than 
in the subsoil. The sulphur content is low in both surface soil 
and subsoil in both samples, but the phosphorus is good in the 
surface soil of both samples, fair in the subsoil of sample lo, and 
poor in the subsoil of sample ii. Both sulphur and phosphorus 
are lower in the subsoil than the surface soil in both samples. 

The Indiana soil samples (nos. 12-18) were taken near Charles- 
town, Clark County, Indiana. This region is underlain by lime- 
stone rock, but the rock has been covered by a thick layer of 
windblown material, from which most of the soils were formed. All 
the soils sampled were fonned from this windblown material except 
no. 12, which was taken on the bluft" of a small stream where there 
was considerable erosion. It seems that the erosion has removed 
the greater part of the windblown material, and to a large extent 
the soil is formed from the underlying limestone. This is probably 
the reason why this sample resembles in general appearance and in 
chemical composition the Kentucky soils rather than the adjacent 
soils from the windblown material or loess. Sample 12 has a light 
brown silt loam surface soil grading into a reddish yellow subsoil. 
Like the other Indiana soils, the volatile matter and sulphur are low, 
but the phosphorus is high Hke most of the Kentucky soils. 

The loessal soils include two types, the one with good natural 
underdrainage and the other with poor drainage. The fomier, 
which includes samples 15-18, is a yellow gray silt loam in the sur- 
face soil and a yellow silt loam in the subsoil. The latter, which 
includes samples 13 and 14, has a gray or slightly yellowish gray 
silt loam surface soil underlam by a gray or gray and yellow mottled 
silt loam subsoil. Both are poorly drained, but sample 13 is more 
nearly level and has more gray color in both surface and subsoil. 
All the samples from both types are low in volatile matter, sulphur. 



gS BOT.WfCM. GA/.ETTE [February 

and ]-)hos])horiis. Sami)k's 15 and 16 were taken a few rods apart, 
the fonncr from a fii'ld \vhi\'h had been in alfalfa for several years, 
and the latter ixorw vir<!;in land. Both have i)ractically the same 
phosphorus content, but the sulphur is much higher in the virgin 
soil. 

All the soil samples from Kentucky (nos. 19-34) are residual 
limestone soils, but no. 34 was deri\cd from the Trenton limestone, 
which is high in phosphorus, while the others are all from the 
Cincinnati limestone, but no. li'i was taken from soil derived 
from Cincinnati limestone, but it was only a short distance from 
thedivision line between the Cincinnati and Trenton formations, and 
had probably received some material from the Trenton formation. 
Samples 19-27 are from ]\Iason County, while samples 28-34 are 
from ]\Iercer County. Samples 19 and 21 are clay loams, while 20 
and 22-27 '^^^ silt loams. All are light brown to grayish brown in 
color. Sample 34 is a heavy clay loam, sample 28 is a heavy silt 
loam or light clay loam, while samples 29 -^7^ are silt loams. 
Samples 31 and ^^^^ are quite gray in color, and ^2> contains iron 
concretions. \o. 31 is known locally as white oak land, and both 
are recognized as poor soils. All the other samples are light brown 
except no. 34, which is a grayish brown. All the Kentucky soils 
arc low in volatile matter except the clay loams, in which i)art of 
the volatile matter is probabl\' water of combination. All are low 
in sulphur, no. 34 being the only one above 0.03 per cent. This 
sample is from the Trenton formation and contains many un- 
weathered fragments of limestone. It is possible that the sul- 
phur content as well as the phosj)horus content of the Trenton 
limestone ma}- be higher than in other fonnations. No. 34 con- 
tains 0.3407 per cent of phosjihorus, which is ele\'en times as great 
as the sulphur content. 'J'his is much higher than an}' of the others, 
but all the others are high in phosphorus. 

Relation between amounts of sulphur and phosphorus 
removed by crops and sulphur and phosphorus contents of 
SOILS. — A better idea of the suppl}- of sulphur and phosphorus in 
the soil can be obtained if the pounds ])er acre of these elements 
found in the surface soil is com])ared with the amounts removed by 
some of our commim crops. Table II gives the amounts of sulphur 



1922] 



woo DA RD—SOIL FER TILI T Y 



99 



and phosphorus removed by some of the common crops. The 
yields per acre and the amounts of phosphorus removed by these 
yields are taken from Hopkins and Pettit's (34) table, while 
the amounts of sulphur removed are computed from Hart and 
Peterson's analyses. 

As pointed out by Hopkins and Pettit (34), these yields are 
exceptionally large, but they have been obtained by some farmers, 
and others may obtain them under proper systems of farming. If, 
however, smaller yields are removed, it will not prevent soil deple- 
tion, but will only delay soil exhaustion if the elements removed 

TABLE II 

Pounds per acre removed by farm crops 



Crop 





Pounds per acre removed 




ANNUALLY 


\IELD PER ACRE 






Sulphur 


Phosphorus 


100 bushels 


7.8 


17,0 


100 bushels 


5-8 


1 1 .0 


50 bushels 


51 


12.0 


3 tons 


II. 4 


9.0 


4 tons 


130 


20.0 


8 tons 


46.0 


30.0 


300 bushels 


24.7 


13.0 



Corn, grain. . . 
Oats, grain . . . 
Wheat, grain . 
Timothy, hay. 
Clover, hay . . 
Alfalfa, hay. . 
Potatoes 



are not returned in some form. In actual practice, failure to 
return to the soil the elements of plant food which are removed in 
the crops will result in a gradual decrease in yields, so that the 
amounts of plant food removed will gradually become less. It is 
impossible to determine the time when complete exhaustion will 
take place, but a comparison of the amounts of plant food removed 
by large crops with the amounts present in the soil will emphasize 
the importance of renewing the supply in the soil before the soil 
supply is reduced below that necessary for satisfactory crop yields. 
Table III gives the pounds per acre of sulphur and phosphorus in 
the surface soils analyzed and the number of years' supply of each 
for several common fami crops, if maximum crops are removed, 
such as are given in table II. 

Table III shows that all the soils are too low in sulphur to grow 
alfalfa for 40 years, while 22 of them have phosphorus enough to 



BOTAMCAL GA/.ETTE 



[FEBRrARY 



<::^ro\v alfalfa 40 years or longer, i")rovi(le(l, of course, none of these 
elements is added in any way and none removed except in the crops. 
Sample 9 A, which has the highest sulphur content, has sulphur 

TABLE III 

Pounds pkr acrk of sulphur and piiosi'iiorus and xrMHi:R or ykars' supply 

FOR VARIOUS CROPS IF MAXIMUM CROPS Ml 



Soil no. 



1 A 

2 A 

3 A 

4 A 

5 A 

6 A 

7 A 
SA 
qA 

10 A 

11 A 
12 . . 

13- ■ 
14. . 

IS- • 

16. . 

17. . 

18. . 
19.. 

20. . 

21 . . 

22. . 

23- • 
24. . 

25 • • 

26. . 

27 . . 

28. . 

29. . 

30. . 
3I-- 
32.. 
?<?, ■ ■ 
34- • 



SL'LPHLR 



3i(> 
072 
366 

638 
464 
668 
562 

1810 
702 

4QO 

344 
330 
236 
310 
466 
566 
310 

5i(> 
464 
262 

244 
412 
528 
318 
472 
306 
490 
470 
322 
506 
500 
326 
626 



Xo. of years' supply for 



Corn Wheat 



Timo- 
thy 



12.S 


igl 


47 


72 


03 


142 


82 


125 


60 


91 


86 


13 1 


72 


1 10 


^?,2 


355 


go 


138 


63 


q6 


44 


(,7 


42 


(>5 


30 


46 


40 


61 


60 


91 


47 


72 


40 


61 


()6 


lOI 


Oo 


01 


34 


51 


31 


48 


53 


88 


68 


104 


41 


64 


61 


93 


39 


50 


63 


96 


60 


02 


41 


63 


6.S 


99 


64 


98 


42 


'•4 


80 


I 2 2 



28 

85 

30 

63 

41 
00 
50 
159 
62 

43 
30 
29 
2 I 
28 
41 
?,2 
28 

45 
41 



3f> 
46 
28 
41 
27 
43 
41 
28 

44 
44 
29 



Clover 



24 

75 
28 

5^' 
49 
36 
5' 
43 
139 
54 
38 
26 

25 
18 

24 

3f^ 

28 

24 
40 

3(> 
20 

19 
32 
41 
24 
36 
24 
38 
36 
25 
39 
38 
-S 
48 



Alfalfa 



14 



Phosphorus 



-do , 



1056 
780 



1028 
1576 
1542 
1 164 
1878 
14S8 
1590 
2108 
1256 
980 
I 132 
I 128 

984 
II 56 

3794 
1598 
3272 
2596 
1536 
2754 
1954 
3530 
2740 
4710 
5000 
3558 
2014 

3454 
2612 
6814 



No. of years' supply for 



Corn 



42 
61 

46 



60 
93 
91 
68 
1 10 
88 

94 
124 

74 
58 
67 
66 
58 
68 
223 

94 
192 

153 

90 

162 

"5 
208 
161 

277 
176 
209 
118 
203 

154 

401 



Wheat 



60 
86 
63 



86 

131 
129 

97 
X56 
124 

^^?, 

105 

82 

94 

94 

82 

96 

316 

133 

273 

216 

128 

230 

163 

294 

228 

393 
250 
296 
168 
288 
218 
568 



Timo- 
thy 



80 

115 

83 



114 

175 
171 
129 
209 
165 
177 

234 
139 
109 
126 
125 
109 
128 
422 



/ / 



364 
288 
171 
306 
216 
392 
304 
523 

395 
224 
384 
290 

757 



Clover 



36 
52 
39 



79 

77 
58 
94 
74 
80 

"05 
''3 
49 



49 

58 
190 

80 
164 
130 

77 
138 

98 
177 

137 
236 
150 
178 

lOI 

173 
131 
341 



Alfalfa 



29 
44 
43 
32 
52 
41 
44 
59 
35 
27 
31 
31 
27 

:?,2 
105 
44 
91 
72 
43 
77 
54 
98 
76 
131 
83 
99 
56 
96 

73 
189 



enough for 39 years of altalfa and phosphorus enough for 52 years 
of alfalfa. Only one other soil, no. 2 A, had enough sulphur for 20 
}'ears of alfalfa, while three soils, nos. 19, 28, and 34, have enough 



1922] WOODARD—SOIL FERTILITY lOI 

phosphorus for loo or more years of ah"alfa. No. 34 has phosphorus 
enough to grow alfalfa 189 years, but sulphur enough for only 14 
years. The phosphorus content of no. 28 is sufficient to grow 
alfalfa for 131 years, but the same crop would deplete the sulphur 
in II years. All these soils have sufficient phosphorus to grow 
maximum yields of alfalfa for 20 years or longer, while all but two 
would be depleted of sulphur in less than 20 years. 

Of the other crops mentioned, corn, wheat, and clover remove 
smaller amounts of sulphur than phosphorus; while timothy, like 
alfalfa, removes more sulphur than phosphorus. Timothy, how- 
ever, removes only about one-fourth as much sulphur, and one- 
fourth as much phosphorus as alfalfa, so that the supply of each 
would last correspondingly longer, yet soil 9 A is the only one that 
carries sufficient sulphur for 100 crops of timothy. Soil 9 A has 
sulphur enough to grow timothy 159 years, clover 139 years, corn 
232 years, and wheat 355 years. No. 34 has phosphorus enough 
for 401 corn crops, 568 wheat crops, and 341 clover crops; yet the 
sulphur would be depleted by 80 corn crops, 122 wheat crops, or 
48 clover crops. The lowest phosphorus content is in soil i A, a 
sandy loam soil, which has 720 pounds of phosphorus in the surface 
7 inches of soil. The phosphorus in this soil would be depleted 
by growing corn 42 years, wheat 60 years, timothy 80 years, clover 
36 years, or alfalfa 20 years. In the same soil the sulphur would 
be removed by 40 years of corn, 62 of wheat, 28 of timothy, 24 of 
clover, or 7 of alfalfa. 

Table III shows the importance of both sulphur and phosphorus 
if maximum crops of legumes, particularly alfalfa, are to be grown. 
It also shows that, in most soils, sulphur is more hkely to be defi- 
cient than phosphorus. It does not take into account the leaching 
of these elements from the soil, which is practically nil in the case 
of phosphorus and very high in the case of sulphur; nor the supply 
in the rain water, which is nil in the case of phosphorus and may be 
quite high in the case of sulphur near cities in the humid regions. 
Whether the amount of sulphur lost in the drainage water exceeds 
that gained in the rain water is still unknown. It is certain that 
the amount of leaching will vary with the character of the soil, the 
rainfall, and the character of the plant growth. The amount of 



102 BOTAXrCAL GAZETTE [ikhrlary 

sulphur in the rain water will \ar)- with the rainfall and the near- 
ness to cities where large amounts of soft coal are used. It is 
possible that, in some places mider certain conditions, the amount 
of suli)hur brought down in the rain water will equal or exceed that 
lost in the drainage, but that in other places and under other con- 
ditions the loss will exceed the gain. Field ex])eriments are needed 
to see whether the plants will respond to sulphur fertilization under 
field conditions. Remarkable responses were obtained b}- Judge 
Peters, John Binxs, and Edmund Ruffix in the Ivistern United 
States (Crocker, 15), and have recently been obtained on the 
Pacific Coast by Reimer and Tart.xr (58) in Oregon, and by 
Olsox (54) in Washington. To secure further information along 
this line, coo])erative experiments were conducted on some farms 
in Indiana and Kentuck}- from which some of the samples reported 
in table I were taken. 

COOPERATIVK FIELD EXPERIMEXTS WITH GYl'SUM 

The field experiments were conducted in cooperation with the 
fami owners. The fami owners were to apply gyj^sum and rei)ort 
on the eft'ect on yields, if any. Some of the farmers failed to make 
any report, and those w'ho did gave no w'eights, so that the results 
are not as satisfactory- as could be desired. Results reported are 
as follows. 

In the Indiana exi^eriments, g}i:)sum was applied to alfalfa, red 
clover, and tobacco. The only report received was with regard to 
the tobacco. This tobacco field was on the fami of Mr. Ross, 
southwest of Charlestown, Indiana. This is the field from which 
sample 12 was taken, and, as show^n in tables I and III, is low in 
suli)hur and high in phosphorus. Mr. Ross reports a marked 
increase in }-ield of tobacco from the use of g}-psum on this field, 
but gives no ciuantitative data. 

Gypsum was applied to alfalfa, red clo\er, sweet clover, and 
tobacco in Mason County, Kentuck}-. The crops were injured so 
badly by weather conditions, however, that no results were obtained. 

In Mercer County, Kentucky, gypsum was applied to tobacco, 
clover, and alfalfa. Of the fanners resi)onding, Mr. Sharp reported 
no increase in tobacco, while Mr. Fowler reported an increase in 



1922] WOO DARD— SOIL FERTILITY 103 

the second clover crop, and Mr. Tuomey an increase in alfalfa. 
Neither of these men weighed the hay, so the results are not quan- 
titative. Mr. Sharp's field, from which sample 30 was taken, is 
low in sulphur and high in phosphorus, but it showed evidences of 
being fanned hard, and was evidently low in nitrogen, which was 
probably the hmiting element for a non-leguminous crop like 
tobacco. Mr. Fowler's soil, no. ^2, has 0.0250 per cent sulphur 
and 0.1727 per cent phosphorus, equivalent to 500 pounds of sul- 
phur, and 3454 pounds of phosphorus, in the surface soil; so sulphur 
was probably the limiting element for clover. Mr. Tuomey 's field, 
sample 34, had 6814 pounds of phosphorus, the highest of the 
samples analyzed. This sample also contained small fragments of 
limestone, so that there was an abundance of lime. On the 
other hand, the sulphur content, 626 pounds, although higher than 
in many samples, is probably rather low for a plant like alfalfa, 
which uses such large quantities of sulphur. 

These results are not conclusive, but it seems probable that 
sulphur may be a limiting element on some of these soils, and that 
gypsum is a satisfactory source of supply for this element. More 
field experiments are necessary in the humid part of the United 
States, and great care in conducting these experiments is necessary 
if satisfactory results are to be obtained. Experiments should be 
conducted through several years to avoid weather conditions, which 
may be the limiting factor in some years. On some soils drainage 
is necessary, and no fertilizer treatment will have any eft'ect until 
this is done. Most soils in the humid part of the United States 
are acid. A large part of them are so acid that Hming is necessary 
before any other treatment is effective, especially for leguminous 
crops. Table I shows a high phosphorus content in some of the 
soils reported in this paper, but those are exceptional soils. As a 
general rule soils are deficient in phosphorus, and fanners report 
increases in crop yields for the use of acid phosphate. It is impos- 
sible, however, to tell how much of the increase is due to the phos- 
phorus and how much to the sulphur in the acid phosphate. A 
comparison of acid phosphate with rock phosphate and gypsum, 
and with g)^psum alone, and rock phosphate alone would give some 
valuable results. 



I04 BOTAXICAL GAZETTE [fkbriary 

]\Iany of the Illinois cxjx'rimenl iields include three check plots 
in each series. These check plots arc all untreated and are only a 
short distance apart, yet some of them differ widely in croj) yields. 
It is reasonable to assume that nei<jhborinfi; plots receiving the 
same fertilizer treatment would differ as widelw These dilTerences 
clue to factors not under the control of the investigators make the 
probable error large, and when only one plot of each treatment is 
used, the differences between plots with different treatments must 
be great before one can assume that the treatment has been effec- 
tive. Where the differences are as great as in the work of Reimer 
and Tartar (58) and of Olsox (54), there is no doubt that the 
treatment has l)een effecti\e, but in many of the field exi)erimcnts 
in different parts of the country' the differences are too small to 
justify the conclusions drawn from them, as the probable error is 
so great. Where a number of plots of each treatment are used, the 
uncontrollable factors tend to neutralize each other aiid the ])rol)- 
able error is reduced. As the number of plots of each treatment 
increases, smaller average differences arc necessary to be signifi- 
cant. It seems probable that three plots of each treatment are 
necessar}- if satisfactory results arc to be obtained. In the past 
investigators have had a tendency to scatter fiekl experiments over 
a number of widely separated fields on the same soil type. It seems 
probable that more satisfactory results would be obtained if the 
work were confined to one field on each soil t\pe, and each field 
had from three to five plots of each treatment. 

Summary 

1. Composite soil samples from Indiana, Kentucky, Michigan, 
Ohio, and Wisconsin were analyzed for total sulphur, total phos- 
phorus, and volatile matter (loss on ignition), and C()o])erative 
fertilizer experiments with gypsum were conducted in Iields in 
Indiana and Kentucky. 

2. The anahtical data show a general relation between the sul- 
phur content and loss on ignition in soil samples from the same soil 
t}pe or closeh' related soil types, but the relation is not apparent 
when different soil types are compared. 



19- 



WOODARD—SOIL FERTILITY 105 



3. The sulphur contents in the surface soil vary from 0.0118 to 
0.0905 per cent, while the phosphorus contents vary from 0.0360 
to 0.3407 per cent. All the upland soils and most of the alluvial 
soils are low in sulphur. Most of the Kentucky soils and one of 
the Indiana soils are high in phosphorus. This is undoubtedly due 
to the influence of the rock from which the soils were fonued, as all 
the Kentucky samples were from soils derived either from the Tren- 
ton limestone or the Cincinnati limestone, both of which are high 
in phosphorus content. 

4. The sulphur and phosphorus contents were calculated to 
pounds per acre in the surface soil, and compared with the amounts 
of sulphur and phosphorus removed by maximum crops of corn, 
wheat, timothy, clover, and alfalfa. The highest sulphur content 
is sufficient for only 39 years of alfalfa, 139 of clover, 159 of timothy, 
355 of wheat, or 232 of corn; while the lowest sulphur content is 
sufficient for only 5 years of ahalfa, 18 of clover, 21 of timothy, 46 
of wheat, or 30 of corn. The lowest phosphorus content is equal 
to the amount removed b>- 42 years of corn, 60 of wheat, 80 of 
timothy, 36 of clover, or 20 of alfalfa. On the other hand, it would 
take 401 years of corn, 568 of wheat, 757 of timothy, 341 of clover, 
or 189 of alfaha to remove as much phosphorus as is found in the 
soil with the highest phosphorus content. 

5. On some of the soils tobacco, clover, and alfalfa have been 
benefited by the use of gypsum. The results, however, are not 
quantitative. More field experiments are needed and greater care 
should be taken to eliminate other factors as far as possible. Each 
treatment should be replicated to reduce the probable error. 

This investigation was conducted under a research fellowship 
from the Gypsum Industries Association. The work was perfonned 
at the University of Chicago in the Hull Botanical Laboratory under 
the direction of Dr. William Crocker. The author wishes to 
thank the Gypsum Industries Association for their kindness in 
furnishing the fellowship and Dr. Crocker for his kind and helpful 
advice and criticism. Thanks are also due Dr. Frederick Koch 
for his kind advice and criticism of analytical methods. 

University of Illinois 
Urban.a, III. 



lo6 BOTAMCAL CA/.ETTE [i-kbruary 

I.ITKRAI TRK (VYVA) 

1. Ami.s. J. W., and Riciimoxd, 'J'. K., Ft-rnifiitatioii of manure treated with 
sulphur and sulphates. Changes in nitrogen and phos[)horus content. 
Soil Science 4:70-80. 1017. 

2. — — ■ — Effect of sulphofication and nitrification on rock phosphate. Soil 
Science 6:351-364. loiS. 

3. BouLL.AXGER, E., and Dugakdix, M., Mechanisme de Taction du soufre. 
Compt. Rend. Acad. Sci. Paris 155:327-320. iqi2. 

4. Br.\di.ky. C. E., The reaction of lime and gypsum on some Oregon soils. 
Jour. Ind. and Engin. Chem. 2:520-530. loio. 

5. Brezealk, J.E.. and Briggs, L.J.. Concentration of potassium in ortho- 
clase solutions not a measure of its availability to wheat seedlings. Jour. 
Agric. Res. 20:615-621. 1021. 

6. Briggs, L. J., and Brezeale, J. F., .\vailability of potash in certain ortho- 
clase bearing soils as affected by lime or gypsum. Jour. Agric. Res. 
8:21-28. 1917. 

7. Brioux, Cii., and C.rERBKT, :\I., L'action fertilisante du soufre. Annales 
Sci. Agron. 30:305-306. 1913. 

8. Brooks, W. P., Alfalfa. Mass. Agric. Exp. Sla. Bull. 154. 1914 (p. 158). 

9. , Phosphates in .Massachusetts agriculture, importance, selection, 

and use. Mass. Agric. Exp. Sta. Bull. 162. 1015. 

10. Browx, p. E., and Gwixx, A. R., Effect of sulphur and manure on avail- 
ability of rock phosphate in soil. Iowa Agric. Exp. Sta. Res. Bull. 43: 
373-379. 1017- 

11. Browx, p. E., and Kellogg, F2. H., Sulphofication in soils. Iowa Agric. 
Exp. Sta. Res. Bull. 18:104-110. 1914. 

12. Browx, p. E., and W'arxer, H. W., The production of available phosphorus 
from rock phosphate by composting with sulphur and manure. Soil 
Science 4: 260-282. ioi7- 

13. Browxe, J. D., The field book of manures or the American muck book. 
1854 (pp. 68-75). 

14. Bruckxer, W. II., American manures. 1872 (p. 65). 

15. Crocker, \Vm., History of the use of gypsum as a fertilizer. (Unpub- 
lished article.) 

16. Demolox, M. a., Recherches sur Taction fertilisante du soufre. Compt. 
Rend. Acad. Sci. Paris 156:725-728. 1913. 

17. Duley, F. L., The relation of sulphur to soil productivity. Jour, Amer. 
Soc. Agron. 8: 154-160. 1016. 

18. Dymoxt), T. S., Hughes, F., and Jupe, C. \V. C, The intlucnce of sulphates 
as manures upon the yield and feeding value of crops. Jour. Agric. Sci. i : 
217-229. 1905. 

19. Eatox, S. v., Sulphur content of soils and its relation to plant nutrition. 
(Unpublished article.) 



i9::2] WOODARD—SOIL FERTILITY 107 

20. Ellett, W. B., and Harris, W. G., Cooperative experiments for the 
composting of phosphate rock and sulphur. Soil Science, 10:315-325. 
1920. 

21. Feilitzen, H. von, t)ber die Verwendung der Schwefelbliite zur Bekampf- 
ung des Kartoffelschorfes und als indirekes Diingemittel. Fuhling's 
Landw. Zeit. 62:239. 1913. 

22. Fraps, G. S., The effect of additions on the availability of soil potash, and 
the preparation of sugar humus. Texas Agric. Exp. Sta. Bull. 190. 1-30, 
1916. 

23. Fred, E. B., and Hart, E. B., The comparative effect of phosphates 
and sulphates on soU bacteria. Wis. .^gric. Exp. Sta. Res. Bull. 35. 
pp. 42-44- 1915- 

24. Greaves, J. E., Carter, E. F., and Goldthorpe, H. C, Influence of 
salts on nitric nitrogen in soUs. Jour. Agric. Res. 16:107-135. 1919. 

25. Griffiths, A.B., A treatise on manures. 1889 (pp. 247-248). 

26. Hall, A. D., Book of Rothamsted experiments. 1917. 

27. Hart, E. B., and Peterson, W. H., Sulphur requirements of farm crops 
in relation to the soil and air supply. Wis. Agric. Exp. Sta. Res. BuU. 
no. 14. 1911. 

28. , Sulphur requirements of farm crops. Jour. Amer. Chem. Soc. 

33:549- 1911- 

29. Hart, E. B., and Tottingham, W. E., Relation of sulphur compounds 
to plant nutrition. Jour, .\gric. Res. 5:233-248. 191 5. 

30. Heinrich, R., Concerning the conservation of manure. E.S.R. 5:329, 330. 
1893-1894. Abst. from Landw. presse 20:825. 1893. 

31. Hilgard, E. W., Soils; their formation, properties, composition, and 
relation to climate and plant growth. 1906 (p. 43). 

32. Hopkins, C. G., Soil fertility and permanent agriculture. 1910 (pp. 39, 
1S9). 

33. Hopkins, C. G., Hosier, J. G., Pettit, J. H., and Readhimer, J. E., 
Hardin County soils. 111. Agric. Exp. Sta., Soil Report no. 3. 191 2. 

34. Hopkins, C. G., and Pettit, J. H., The fertility in Illinois soils. 111. 
Agric. Exp. Sta. Bull. no. 123. 1908 (pp. 533-535)- 

35. Hunt, Thos. F., Soil fertility. Pa. State Coll. Bull. no. 90. 1909. 

36. Lawes, J. B., and Gilbert, J. H., Report on the growth of red clover by 
different manures. Jour. Roy. Agric. Soc. 21 : 194. i860. 

37. LiEBiG, J. VON, Principles of agricultural chemistry. 1855. Transl. by 
Wm. Gregory, p. 99. 

38. Lint, H. C, The influence of sulphur on soil acidity. Jour. Ind. and 
Engin. Chem. 6:747. 1914. 

39. Lipman, C. B., and Gericke, W. F., Does calcium carbonate or calcium 
sulphate treatment affect the solubility of the soil constituents? Univ. 
Calif. Publ. Agric. Sci. 3:271-282. 1918. 



loS BOTAMCM. GAZETTE [fkbrl'ary 

40. — ■ — ■ — \ I'lu' sij^nilkaiue of the sulphur in suljjhato of ammonia appUcd to 
certain soils. Soil Science 5:81-86. IQ18. 

41. Lii'M.w. J. (;.. and Jokkk, J. .S., The intluence of initial reaction on the 
o.xidation of sulphur and the formation of available i)hosphates. Soil 
Scienci- io:,^-'7-332. i()2o. • 

42. Lii'MA.N, j. (;., and McLk.vx, II. ('., Suli)hur-phosphate com|)osts under 
field conditions. Soil Science 5: 24,-; -2 50. i()i8. 

43. Lii'M.v.v, J. (;.. McLkan'. H. C., and Lint, H. C"., Suli)hur o.xidation in 
soils and its elTect on the availability of mineral phosphates. Soil Science 
2 1408 -5 ■58. i()i6. 

44. LvDX, T. L., and Bizzkij.. J., Lysimeter experiments. Cornell Univ. 
.\f;ric. Mx]). Sta. Mem. 12. i<)i8. 

45. McCaii., .\. (;., and Smith, .\. M., Effect of manure-sulphur composts 
upon the availability of the potassium of grecnsands. Jour, .\gric. Res. 

19:230-255. 1Q20. 

46. McCooL, M. M.. and .Mii.i.ar, C. K., Effect of calcium sulphate on the 
st)lubility of soils. Jour, .\gric. Res. 19:47-54. iq20. 

47. .MacI.xtirk, \V. H., W'ii.i.is, L. (1., and IIoi.di.vg, W. .\., The divergent 
effects of lime and magnesia upon the conservation of soil sulphur. Soil 
Science 4:231 237. 1917. 

48. .McLkax, H. C, The o.xidation of sulphur by micro-organisms in its rela- 
tion to the availability of phosphates. Soil Science 5:251-200. 1918. 

49. .Mc.MiLi..\R, P. R., Inlluence of gypsum upon the .solubility of potash in 
soils. Jour. Agric. Res. 14:61-66. 10 1 8. 

50. -Marls, M. H., Des transformations que subit le soufre en poudre (lleur 
de soufre et soufre triture) quand il est repandu sur le sol. Compt. Rend. 
Acad. Sci. Paris 69:074 -070. i860. 

51. Mii.r.KR, II. G., Sulphates affecting plant growth and composition. Jour. 
.\gric. Res. 17:87-101. i()i(). 

52. MoRSK, F. \\'.. and Ci rrv. H. l"... The availability of the soil potash in 
clay and clay loam soils. X. 11. .\gric. E.xp. Sta. Bull. 142. pp. 40-51. 
iQog. 

53. Xoi.TE, Otto, Uber die Ursache der stickstoffverluste aus Jauche and 
Stallmist. Landw. \'ers. Stat. 96:309-324. 1920. 

54. Oi.so.x, Geo. .'\., Unpublished work of the Chemistry Department, Washing- 
ton State College. 

55. Pi:ti;rso.x. W. H., Forms of sulphur in plant materials and their variation 
with the soil supply. Jour. .Vnu-r. Chem. Soc. 36:1290-1300. 1914. 

56. Pi-KIFFKR, Th., and Bi.axck. Iv, Landw. Vers. Stats. 83:359-383. 1914. 

57. PiTZ. \\., F>ffect of elemental sulphur ami calcium sulphate on certain of 
the higher and lower forms of plant life. Jour, .\gric. Res. 5:771 780. 
10 16. 

58. Rki.mkr, V. C, and Tartar, II. W, Sulphur as a fertilizer for alfalfa in 
Southern Oregon. Ore. Agric. l^.xp. Sta. Bull. 163. 1919. 



1922] WOODARD—SOIL FERTILITY 109 

59. RoBixsoN, \V. O., Inorganic composition of some American soils. U.S. 
Dept. Agric. Bull. 122. 1914. 

60. Robinson, W. O., Steinkonig, L. A., and Fry, W. H., Variation in 
chemical composition of soils. U.S. Dept. Agric. Bull. 551. 1Q17. 

61. ScHREiNER, O., The role of oxidation in soil fertility. U.S. Dept. Agric. 
Soils Bureau Bull. 56. pp. 30-42. 1909. 

62. Shedd, O. ]\I., The sulphur content of some typical Kentucky soils. Ky. 
Agric. Exp. Sta. Bull. 174. 1913. 

63. , Effect of sulphur on different crops and soils. Jour, .\gric. Res. 

11:91-103. 1917- 

64. Sherbakoff, C. D., Potato scab and sulphur disinfection. Cornell 
Univ. Agric. Exp. Sta. Bull. 350. 738, 739. 1914. 

65. Smith, R. S., Some effects of potassium salts on soils. Cornell Univ. 
Agric. Exp. Sta. Mem. 35. p. 5S6. 1920. 

66. Stewart, J. P., The fertilization of apple orchards. Pa. State Coll. 
Agric. Exp. Sta. Bull. 153. 1918. 

67. Stewart, Robert, Sulphur in relation to soil fertility. 111. Agric. Exp. 
Sta. Bull. no. 227. 1920. 

68. Swanson. C. O., and Miller, R. W., The sulphur content of some typical 
Kansas soils and the loss of sulphur due to cultivation. Soil Science 

3:139-148- IQI7- 

69. Tressler, D. K., The solubility of soil potash in various salt solutions. 
Soil Science 6:237-257. iqiS. 

70. Vendelmans, Henry, Manual of Manures. 1916 (p. 142). 

71. Vivien, A., Abs. E. S. R. 17:951; from Monit. Sci. 4: ser. 19. no. 2. 

773-779- 1905- 

72. VooRHEES, E. B., Fertilizers. 191 7- Revised ed., p. 116. 

73. Warington, R., Reprint from Jour. Chem. Soc. 47. 1885. 



LIBRORY OF CONGRESS 



000 937 786 4 



